<< No, it’s not plausible at all. Circumcision has no relationship to sperm production or fertility. >>
How can you be so sure of this? Suppose that a botched (or maybe normal) infantile circumcision results in the matured victim to end up having ED. Is this plausible to you so far? As a result of having ED, his genitals atrophy to some degree or another from non-use. Could this be a possibility do you think? Now, being that his genitals including his testicles aren’t receiving a healthy full flow blood supply (non-use in my opinion diminishes good blood supply and functionality of the genitals), is it understandable to me that this could cause the victim to become stricken with low testosterone (especially after middle age).
I don’t know exactly what the figures are in this country, but I can tell you that there are a lot of healthy young males and healthy middle aged or older males with extremely low testosterone levels. How could this be? Nobody anywhere dares to question as to whether infantile circumcision could be causing this? Well, I’m here to tell everybody that I am questioning it.
I’m not a medical professional, but from what I understand, virility and fertility are very much related. Low testosterone levels pretty much guarantee low sperm quality/counts. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that intact men are much hornier than cut men generally speaking. To me, this horniness is indicative of having high testosterone levels.
There you go! Infantile circumcision kind of reminds me of what we do to our pets to tame them down preventing them from humping our legs. In my most honest and brightest thinking, I can really say I think the reason why male infants have been routinely sexually butchered in this country is so that the resulting man would be more productive, meaning that his desire for sexual relations wouldn’t be an all consuming determining factor in his life. Does this sound plausible to you westla? Think about it!